Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Israeli ruling on Corrie death draws widespread condemnation
Options
Comments
-
FrontStorm wrote: »You are beginning to reveal your ignorance of the context. The Palestinians were the ones who declared an intifada on Israel. They initiated conflict on a sovereign state after a period of relative peace..
...which rather ignores the on-going occupation, and is hardly justification for the widespread killing of non-combatants.FrontStorm wrote: »The entire Arab world aiming to wipe the tiny state of Israel off the map, with the aid of susceptible middle class white people, is utterly disgusting to me, but each to their own.
I'm somewhat perplexed as to what significance the skin colour is, in relation to both the specific issue of Rachel Corrie, or the conflict in general. Perhaps you might explain.0 -
Disappointed. Clicked on this intrigued to find out what Israel has against coronation street.0
-
On the other hand, Rachel Corrie traveled to a war zone half way across the world, to a country where she had no business,
Oppression is the business of us all..
Also, not a war zone. A demolition site.0 -
...which rather ignores the on-going occupation, and is hardly justification for the widespread killing of non-combatants.
Factually incorrect. Gaza isn't occupied by Israel. It is governed by the terrorist organisation Hamas. They ousted the Fatah moderates during the Battle of Gaza in 2007, showing that they've zero interest in peace with Israel.I'm somewhat perplexed as to what significance the skin colour is, in relation to both the specific issue of Rachel Corrie, or the conflict in general. Perhaps you might explain.
No significance, really. I just thought it was noteworthy that Africans, Chinese, Latin Americans, Filipinos and practically every non-white race on the planet manages to get on with their daily lives without feeling the need to interfere with domestic Israeli issues. The constant Israel bashing from left leaning, middle class whites lends itself to anti-Semitic accusations.
Maybe you can give a better explanation why anti-Israeli protesters are almost exclusively European and North American? And why don't these same protesters show the same level of concern for Zimbabwe, Taiwan etc0 -
FrontStorm wrote: »Maybe you can give a better explanation why anti-Israeli protesters are almost exclusively European and North American? And why don't these same protesters show the same level of concern for Zimbabwe, Taiwan etc
Wow. that blows my ignorance out of the water. It must be anti-semetic propaganda that leads us to believe that the Israeli state isn't, in fact, beloved among the Arab nations :rolleyes:0 -
Advertisement
-
it is the american government that miss corrie should have been protesting to......
it was not a great idea to go to israel........0 -
FrontStorm wrote: »No significance, really. I just thought it was noteworthy that Africans, Chinese, Latin Americans, Filipinos and practically every non-white race on the planet manages to get on with their daily lives without feeling the need to interfere with domestic Israeli issues. The constant Israel bashing from left leaning, middle class whites lends itself to anti-Semitic accusations.
Maybe you can give a better explanation why anti-Israeli protesters are almost exclusively European and North American? And why don't these same protesters show the same level of concern for Zimbabwe, Taiwan etc
I found some more evidence of anti-semetic propaganda for you. This time distributed by a jewish newspaper which claims the Venezuelans support the Palestinians over Israel. Those pesky European middle class white Venezuelans
http://www.haaretz.com/news/hugo-chavez-israel-plans-to-terminate-the-palestinian-people-1.32430 -
FrontStorm wrote: »No significance, really. I just thought it was noteworthy that Africans, Chinese, Latin Americans, Filipinos and practically every non-white race on the planet manages to get on with their daily lives without feeling the need to interfere with domestic Israeli issues. The constant Israel bashing from left leaning, middle class whites lends itself to anti-Semitic accusations.
Maybe you can give a better explanation why anti-Israeli protesters are almost exclusively European and North American? And why don't these same protesters show the same level of concern for Zimbabwe, Taiwan etc
Wow. Here's some more of the evil propaganda. First a map of countries that allegedly don't recognise Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Israel_Recognition.svg
Second; from here . Countries with no diplomatic relations with Israel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Israel#No_recognition_or_diplomatic_relationsAfrica:
Algeria; Chad (1960–1972); Comoros; Djibouti; Guinea (1959–1967); Libya; Mali (1960–1973); Morocco (1994–2000); Mauritania[23] (2000–2009); Niger (1960–1973, 1996–2002); Somalia; Sudan; and Tunisia[1] (1996–2000), all of which have a Muslim majority.
(Algeria,[24] Libya,[25] Somalia[26][27][28] and Sudan[29] do not recognise Israel as a state.)
Americas:
Bolivia[30] (1950–2009); Cuba,[29][31] (1950–1973); Nicaragua [32] (1948–1982, 1992–2010) (relations currently suspended, not severed[33]); and Venezuela[34] (1950–2009).
East Asia:
North Korea.[35] (Does not recognise Israel as a state.)[36]
Middle East:
Bahrain (1996–2000); Iran (1948–1951, 1953–1979); Iraq; Kuwait; Lebanon; Oman (1996–2000); Qatar[23] (1996–2009); Saudi Arabia; Syria; United Arab Emirates; and Yemen.
(Iran,[37] Iraq,[38] Kuwait,[29] Lebanon,[29] Saudi Arabia,[29] Syria,[29][39] United Arab Emirates,[40] and Yemen[29] do not recognise Israel as a state.)
South and Central Asia:
Afghanistan; Bangladesh; Bhutan (which has diplomatic relations with only 25 countries[41]); and Pakistan.
(Afghanistan,[42] Bangladesh,[43] and Pakistan[29] do not recognise Israel as a state.)
Southeast Asia:
Brunei; Malaysia;[29] and Indonesia,[29][43][44]
(None of these countries recognise Israel as a state.)
Why do they feed us this lies Mr. stormfront? Why oh why?0 -
I found some more evidence of anti-semetic propaganda for you. This time distributed by a jewish newspaper which claims the Venezuelans support the Palestinians over Israel. Those pesky European middle class white Venezuelans
http://www.haaretz.com/news/hugo-chavez-israel-plans-to-terminate-the-palestinian-people-1.3243
Oh dear. Did you really use die-hard socialist dictator Hugo Chavez to score points? It's like bragging about an endorsement from Stalin. The man is a controversial figure, even in his own country.- Protests to remove him from power in April 2002, involving the police and the army, led to 20 people being killed and over 100 wounded (you mentioned Bloody Sunday earlier - seeing any parallels?)
- He is gradually eroding press freedom.
- He regularly comes out with crazy conspiracy theory rants - "George Bush is an alcoholic" - that prevent him being taken seriously by the International community.
- He is a bit too close to his fellow dictators Castro and Ahmadinejad, which explains his virulently anti-US and anti-Israeli rhetoric.
You scored an own goal by bringing up Chavez, tbh.0 -
FrontStorm wrote: »Oh dear. Did you really use die-hard socialist dictator Hugo Chavez to score points? It's like bragging about an endorsement from Stalin. The man is a controversial figure, even in his own country.
- Protests to remove him from power in April 2002, involving the police and the army, led to 20 people being killed and over 100 wounded (you mentioned Bloody Sunday earlier - seeing any parallels?)
- He is gradually eroding press freedom.
- He regularly comes out with crazy conspiracy theory rants - "George Bush is an alcoholic" - that prevent him being taken seriously by the International community.
- He is a bit too close to his fellow dictators Castro and Ahmadinejad, which explains his virulently anti-US and anti-Israeli rhetoric.
You scored an own goal by bringing up Chavez, tbh.
not unless you some how deduced that I was a fan of his.
I was just pointing out the holes in your "facts" that all anti-Israel feeling stemmed from middle class White Europeans and North americans
And I think it proved my point. If you want a thread on Chavez and his politics, go and start one.0 -
Advertisement
-
Wow. Here's some more of the evil propaganda. First a map of countries that allegedly don't recognise Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Israel_Recognition.svg
Second; from here . Countries with no diplomatic relations with Israel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Israel#No_recognition_or_diplomatic_relations
Why do they feed us this lies Mr. stormfront? Why oh why?
Most of those countries there are either muslim/islamic countries or were under the sway of the Soviets at the time of their non-recognition of Israel, that in itself tells you a lot about why they were anti-Israel.0 -
BlaasForRafa wrote: »Most of those countries there are either muslim/islamic countries or were under the sway of the Soviets at the time of their non-recognition of Israel, that in itself tells you a lot about why they were anti-Israel.
What has that got to do with the assertion from Mr Stormfront thatMaybe you can give a better explanation why anti-Israeli protesters are almost exclusively European and North American?
I think he needs to qualify or prove his assertion.
EDIT:
Why did you delete your previous post? The one where you said that Gaza wasn't occupied at the time?
EDIT2:
Try counting up all the pro-israel counties that can't be similarly dismissed as being under the "Sway of the US"0 -
What has that got to do with the assertion from Mr Stormfront that
I think he needs to qualify or prove his assertion.
My response was to you not to him. You made a reply to him about countries that didn't recognise Israel as if they were doing so because of some great moral stand against Israel. I'm saying that most of those countries didn't recognise Israel because either they are muslim/islamic states or they were under orders from the Soviets.EDIT:
Why did you delete your previous post? The one where you said that Gaza wasn't occupied at the time?
That isn't what I said, nodin mentioned "the ongoing occupation", iirc that Gaza hadn't been occupied since 2005. In any case I felt that my post didn't add anything to the discussion so I deleted it.
[/QUOTE]EDIT2:
Try counting up all the pro-israel counties that can't be similarly dismissed as being under the "Sway of the US"
You think France under De Gaulle was under the sway of the US?0 -
No. I was merely responding to his assertion that all anti-Israel sentiment eminated from white middle class in Europe and North America (Ignoring the fact that the US is Israels most consistent ally). I wasn't getting into discussions on political or religious reasons behind it because it is going very far off topic. The poster never qualified his sweeping statement with "apart from Muslim/Arab/ex-Soviet countries....". I never claimed those countries had any moral or applaudable reasons for being more "anti-" than "pro-" IsraelBlaasForRafa wrote: »My response was to you not to him. You made a reply to him about countries that didn't recognise Israel as if they were doing so because of some great moral stand against Israel. I'm saying that most of those countries didn't recognise Israel because either they are muslim/islamic states or they were under orders from the Soviets.
Fair enough. The fact that is hasn't been occupied would beg the question as to why they had bulldozers there. I don't think the Irish State would have been too happy had the British army sent some bulldozers across into Cavan in the '70s.BlaasForRafa wrote: »
That isn't what I said, nodin mentioned "the ongoing occupation", iirc that Gaza hadn't been occupied since 2005. In any case I felt that my post didn't add anything to the discussion so I deleted it.BlaasForRafa wrote: »You think France under De Gaulle was under the sway of the US?
I'm not sure what point this is making. On a thread about a girl who was killed and had her killing subsequently whitewashed over by a state. The thread then denigrated into accusations of, at best hypocrasy, at worst anti-semitism solely from white middle class Europeans and North Americans. As if to imply that her death was a part of some conspiracy against the jewish people.0 -
FrontStorm wrote: »Factually (.......)that they've zero interest in peace with Israel.
Rachel Corrie was killed in 2003. The withdrawal from Gaza only took place in August of 2005.FrontStorm wrote: »No significance, really.
Really? Then why did you mention it?FrontStorm wrote: »I just thought it was noteworthy that Africans, Chinese, Latin Americans, Filipinos and practically every non-white race on the planet manages to get on with their daily lives without feeling the need to interfere with domestic Israeli issues. The constant Israel bashing from left leaning, middle class whites lends itself to anti-Semitic accusations.
Maybe you can give a better explanation why anti-Israeli protesters are almost exclusively European and North American? And why don't these same protesters show the same level of concern for Zimbabwe, Taiwan etc
So it is significant then.
"Latin American" is a race now? Fascinating.
Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile and Paraguay amongst others, all recognise a Palestinian state
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j6LW4hivgKRMW-N8S1xV6P9AwVew?docId=CNG.8ee75df3b4b509a2fd62344f967f6bd0.21
You'll note that Zimbabwe is under widespread sanctions, whereas Israel is not.0 -
FrontStorm wrote: »You are beginning to reveal your ignorance of the context. The Palestinians were the ones who declared an intifada on Israel. They initiated conflict on a sovereign state after a period of relative peace.
Ignorance. That rich coming from someone, deliberately ignoring the constant settlement expansion during the so called "period of peace". There was no period of peace for Palestinians at all. During the Oslo process, Israel constantly expanded there illegal settlements. I know ignoring facts is the only way for you justify you nonsense you spouting, but I am hardly not going to mention them.FrontStorm wrote: »The IDF wear uniforms and specifically target terrorists who pose a threat to their state.
They don't. What the IDF does is protect and help expand Israel outside there borders. This is a well established fact, as per the constant settlement expansion, which I notice you have yet to mention.FrontStorm wrote: »On the other hand, the Palestinian terrorists wear plain clothes to make themselves indistinguishable from civilians and launch rocket attacks from family homes, store weapons there and use them as human shields.
The IDF uses Human Shields:
'IDF troops used 11-year-old boy as human shield in Gaza'
IDF headquarters are in the middle of Tel Aviv.......
I am not defender of the likes of Hamas, there murderous idiots, but then the IDF aren't any better.FrontStorm wrote: »So you finally admit that the IDF were not demolishing houses at the time of Rachel Corrie's death. They were clearing rubble and vegetation, as the official version of events states.
They were demolishing homes..... Again, where did the rubble come from. Seriously, your denial of basic facts is utterly bizarre. The rubble had to come from somewhere.FrontStorm wrote: »This blows the myth out of the water that Corrie was protecting Palestinian homes.
Its not a myth. The rubble was from homes destroyed by the IDF. To pretend that they didn't destroy the homes, is a nasty lie.FrontStorm wrote: »It seems to me that she aimed to simply be a nuisance and make life more difficult for the IDF soldiers trying to clean up the area.
Again, another nasty lie. They destroyed the homes there in the first place, and quite frankly she has every right to protest against them.FrontStorm wrote: »There you go again, spouting off about the IDF being terrorists.
They are terrorists plain and simple. They destroy civilian homes, something you deny as it doesn't suit your nonsensical world view.FrontStorm wrote: »They are the defense forces, in uniform, of a sovereign nation.
A soverign nation expanding outside its borders. A well established fact, that you refuse to acknowledge. They are a bunch of terrorists that you defend.FrontStorm wrote: »I suppose Hamas are angels in your worldview?
Unlike yourself, I haven't defended Hamas. You on the other hand have actually made excuse after excuse for the IDF. Who are again, basically terrorists.FrontStorm wrote: »It seems to me you are the apologetic, determined to make excuses for a foreign national who brandishes automatic weapons for the camera, associates with Palestinian terrorists, and aims to obstruct the clean-up operation of a foreign army. I never claimed that Corrie went around shooting innocent people.
You most certainly were inferring that she used that weapon, otherwise why bring it up? In fact, your intent is to smear her and nothing more. Again, your victim blaming agenda is repugnant, and you are happy to employ lie after lie, to smear a victim of the IDF. Again, this sort of thing is very predictable.
Also, the IDF destroyed civilian homes. This is a well established fact. Pretending otherwise, clealy shows that you are intent on ignoring what the IDF was doing, and what Corrie protesting against. All of this is in aid of your reprehensible victim blaming agenda, after the IDF murdered a protester, while they were in the process of destroying civilian homes.FrontStorm wrote: »The entire Arab world aiming to wipe the tiny state of Israel off the map, with the aid of susceptible middle class white people, is utterly disgusting to me, but each to their own.
Another nasty lie:
Text: Arab peace plan of 2002
There are also peace deals with Egypt and Jordan.
So far, you lie about Israel destroying civilian homes, for the sole purpose of victim blaming. Don't mention the illegal expansion of Israel outside there borders, and then claim the Arab world is out to destory Israel, despite a comprehensive peace offer, and the existence of peace deals with Egypt and Jordan. Your commitment to your constant falsehoods is truly astonishing imho, and you support for the murder of a protesters, via the various lies and smears doubly so.0 -
Yes, you're right. Egypt and Jordan signed peace deals with Israel after they got their asses kicked in the 1967 and 1973 wars.
Oh look, here's another photo of Rachel Corrie flaunting a gun for the camera. Where did she get this weapon? Even if she never directly killed anyone with the weapon, it is proof that she associated with Hamas terrorists.
It's clear that Corrie became radicalized in Gaza. A previously rational person, who benefited from an American education and was reared in the land of the free, adopts extremist views of hatred, begins to dress differently, carry automatic weapons and burn American flags.
The concept of martyrdom ("shahid" in Arabic or "shaheeda" for a female) is strong in Islam. Mothers proudly send their sons away to die by strapping them with explosives and transforming them into suicide bombers. It is an honour to die for your religion or country, in their eyes. "You will go straight to heaven and be granted 72 virgins etc etc."
What if Rachel Corrie deliberately threw herself in the path of the bulldozer as an act of martyrdom? We already know she ignored several warnings from the IDF so she knew exactly what she was doing and the dangers involved. We can never rule out this possibility as it's impossible to know what thoughts were going through her mind at the time.0 -
FrontStorm wrote: »Yes, you're right. Egypt and Jordan signed peace deals with Israel after they got their asses kicked in the 1967 and 1973 wars.
So, you were aware of the fact of the peace treaties, and yet still made that claim. Seems to me that you have 0 credibility on this topic, as you are willing to engage in willful fiction, despite being aware of fact to the contrary.
I, also notice you haven't acknowledged the Arab peace plan, which is an offer from all Arab states, but then I doubt you care, as you have clearly shown you rather ignore facts, when they don't suit.FrontStorm wrote: »Oh look, here's another photo of Rachel Corrie flaunting a gun for the camera. Where did she get this weapon? Even if she never directly killed anyone with the weapon, it is proof that she associated with Hamas terrorists.
Its proof that she held a weapon, and thats about it.
I see that your still on your disgusting victim blaming agenda.FrontStorm wrote: »It's clear that Corrie became radicalized in Gaza. A previously rational person, who benefited from an American education and was reared in the land of the free, adopts extremist views of hatred, begins to dress differently, carry automatic weapons and burn American flags.
She wore a head scarve....... So again proof of nothing. Just more victim blaming, based soley on her choice of what she wore on her head. You are truly desperate here.
Again, your victim blaming is getting more crass and disgusting, the more desperate you get.FrontStorm wrote: »The concept of martyrdom ("shahid" in Arabic or "shaheeda" for a female) is strong in Islam.
Martydom is common to most Religions. However, I am confused as to what your getting at. Corrie wasn't Muslim, so this is completely irrelvant.FrontStorm wrote: »Mothers proudly send their sons away to die by strapping them with explosives and transforming them into suicide bombers.
Yes, they all do that :rolleyes:.FrontStorm wrote: »It is an honour to die for your religion or country, in their eyes.
Yes, among some people on both sides that is the case.... Either way irrelevant, as Corrie wasn't a Muslim, and I haven't seen anything to say that she have converted. Still even if she was, to assume that soley on that basis she would kill herself, is simple bigotry imho.FrontStorm wrote: »What if Rachel Corrie deliberately threw herself in the path of the bulldozer as an act of martyrdom?
So your saying that Corrie was an Islamic extremist who killed herself, without any proof of either of those claims. Your blatant and utterly disgusting lies, are really taking the cake now. Your just making crap up at this point.FrontStorm wrote: »We already know she ignored several warnings from the IDF so she knew exactly what she was doing and the dangers involved.
We can never rule out this possibility as it's impossible to know what thoughts were going through her mind at the time.
Unless you can prove, its then yes we can rule out your frankly disgusting lie against Corrie.
Your one man smear campaign, is simple repugnant and quite frankly disturbing that you are showing such a sheer amount of hatred, and a simple lack of empathy towards this young woman who was murdered, that you are willing to tell lie after lie about her, and accuse her of no evidence of being an Islamic extremist who deliberately killed herself. Quite frankly, this is a new low.
Basically, your entire smear campaign is that she held a gun a couple of times, wore a head scarf (probably out of respect to the culture of her hosts), and that she burned an American flag. With that you accuse of being an Islamic extremist, who killer herself on purpose. I have seen some desperate nonsense form supporters of Israel, but this is really repugnant imho. You have gone to conspiracy theory levels of desperation to smear Corrie, and you are getting more and more desperate, as you go.0 -
FrontStorm wrote: »
Oh look, here's another photo of Rachel Corrie flaunting a gun for the camera. Where did she get this weapon? Even if she never directly killed anyone with the weapon, it is proof that she associated with Hamas terrorists.
......
I had no idea that Hamas had exclusive rights to the Kalashinkov franchise in that region. Like "latin American" being a race, its one of these things that I seemed to have sailed through life without realising.FrontStorm wrote: »It's clear that Corrie became radicalized in Gaza
..
Cherry picked photographs do not constitute proof.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
Since when did being photographed with a gun in a highly militarized and violent area justify a person's murder?0 -
Advertisement
-
Since when did being photographed with a gun in a highly militarized and violent area justify a person's murder?
Your continued misuse of the term "murder" is not helping to progress your argument. The courts ruled that it wasn't murder. Go launch an appeal case if you have evidence to suggest otherwise.
Secondly, can we put to bed the myth that the IDF were demolishing homes at the time of Corrie's death. They were clearing rubble and Corrie crouched down in front of a bulldozer. Protecting what, nobody knows, because there were no houses left standing at this point.
Her deliberate ignoring of all warnings suggests to me that she intended to commit suicide and become a martyr. The act is not uncommon in Islamic society.0 -
FrontStorm wrote: »The courts ruled that it wasn't murder.
It was an Israeli court, who are known to absolve the IDF of its crimes. So there decision is essentially worthless.FrontStorm wrote: ».
Secondly, can we put to bed the myth that the IDF were demolishing homes at the time of Corrie's death. They were clearing rubble
Ok, one more time, where did the rubble come from? Seriously, your bizarre denial of this utterly absurd. The IDF did destroy homes, end of. They were in the process of destroying homes, stopping them from finishing the destruction of one set, would stop them moving on to the next. Your continued lies in this regard are simple silly at this point. The IDF destroyed civilians homes, something which you have yet to offer any condemnation of, and in fact you seem unable to aknowledge this simple, well known fact.FrontStorm wrote: ».
and Corrie crouched down in front of a bulldozer.
According to Israeli courts, who's say in this is worthless.FrontStorm wrote: ».
Protecting what, nobody knows, because there were no houses left standing at this point.
Because the IDF, weren't going to move on to other houses...... :rolleyes: Seriously this is getting very silly.FrontStorm wrote: ».
Her deliberate ignoring of all warnings suggests to me that she intended to commit suicide and become a martyr.
The act is not uncommon in Islamic society.
There are over a billion Muslims in the world. So for the act to be not uncommon, then we would need a hell of lot more Muslims going for martyrdom. So again simple bigotry.
Secondly, no proof that Corrie was Muslim either, but apparently you consider that a smear in and of itself. So again bigotry. You can't even provide evidence that Corrie was a Muslim (because there is none, and this is just another lie in the series of constant lies), but apparently soley based on your accusation that she was, we are to accept she was therefore a suicidal martyr. Desperate nonsense imho.
So, again repeating the same lies and smears against Corrie, without any proof, and now with a nice chunk of bigotry to add to your clearly increasingly desperate conspiracy theory level rants.0 -
FrontStorm wrote: ».............
Secondly, can we put to bed the myth that the IDF were demolishing homes at the time of Corrie's death. They were clearing rubble and Corrie crouched down in front of a bulldozer. ........
You've a source for that?0 -
@Wes: I never said that Corrie was a Muslim. I said she became radicalized, which can be deduced from the pictures of her brandishing automatic weapons, dramatically changing her dress style and burning the flag of her home country. Stop making false claims on my behalf, got it? This is the last time I will ask you.You've a source for that?
I've posted the source earlier already. Please read the thread.
4th and 8th paragraph downThe officer said Corrie and the other pro-Palestinian activists had spent hours trying to block the two military D9 bulldozers under his command from clearing vegetation and rubble near the border, ignoring repeated warnings to leave. Though the military did at times demolish houses used by gunmen or arms smugglers, he said, no houses were slated to be demolished that day.To my regret, after the eighth time, (Corrie) hid behind an earth embankment. The D9 operator didn't see her.0 -
FrontStorm wrote: »@Wes: I never said that Corrie was a Muslim.
So the mention of Islamic this and that, was about what exactly then? You are making 0 sense, and seem to be throwing out random crap in a desperate hope, that something sticks.FrontStorm wrote: »I said she became radicalized, which can be deduced from the pictures of her brandishing automatic weapons, dramatically changing her dress style and burning the flag of her home country.
You can deduce nothing from that actually.
Firstly, plenty of Americans have burned the US flag. Not a fan of flag burning myself, but it hardly evidence that she was about to commit suicide.
Secondly, holding a automatic weapon, is evidence of nothing. Guns are hugely important in American culture. There are people in that country who take there right to bear arms rather serious, and lots of people in that country like guns. So she is no more radical, than any number of NRA members. So again, no bearing on her about to commit suicide.
Lastly wearing a head scarve, isn't uncommon for foreign vistors to majority Muslim countries. So again, no evidence of what you claim.
Everything, you claim is proof, is easily explained with far simpler explantions, as opposed to a ridiculous plot to kill herself, which you have yet to provide any kind of actual evidence, as opposed to what is just the latest in a long line of increasingly desperate lies and smears. Again, your posts are simply reprehensible and show a complete lack of empathy, with the constant lies about the victim.FrontStorm wrote: »Stop making false claims on my behalf, got it? This is the last time I will ask you.
The claims are not false at all. You keep bring up Islamic this or that. So I can't be faulted for coming to the conclusion that you were claiming she was a Muslim. Its a honest mistake, due to your rather desperate smears, and nothing more.
So essentially, all your claims of Islamic matyrs etc are basically nonsense, as they can't possibly have any bearing on Corrie, what with her not being a Muslim. So you just seem to be randomly baning on about something competely irrelevant, due to your inability to back up your smears, with nothng more than tall tales, and some carefully selected and clearly biased pictures.
How about stop posting lies about Corrie btw. Its rather disgusting thing to do, over and over again.FrontStorm wrote: »
Member of the IDF absolving Israel of all wrong doing............ Sure, its not like they have incentive you lie, and its not like the IDF haven't you know lied about this kind of thing in the past. Its amazing we are suppose to trust the IDF, who have 0 credibility, due there past lies about there many crimes in the occupied territories.
Also, the simple question of where the rubble came from has to be asked, and the fact the IDF would go on to destory more civilian homes....0 -
FrontStorm wrote: »You are beginning to reveal your ignorance of the context. The Palestinians were the ones who declared an intifada on Israel. They initiated conflict on a sovereign state after a period of relative peace.
Relative peace?
The Israelis initiated conflict with the Palestinians in 1967 and the alleged "relative peace" you refer to was in fact a period of several decades under an entirely illegal, illegitimate and immoral occupation, in which the Palestinians had to watch their private property being confiscated and used to build towns and villages for squatters settlers.
The area in which Corrie was killed was the Gaza Strip, which has never been internationally accepted - not even by the Americans - to be legitimately part of Israel's territory. So they had no right to have their military or their bulldozer on that land to begin with.
This is before we even get into the case itself, in which people in this thread are justifying running over a protester because "she had it coming". I suppose the people who died on Bloody Sunday also "had it coming"?
^ That is also not rhetorical btw, I want to hear your views on how exactly this is any different to Bloody Sunday. Protesters defying illegitimate rulings by an illegitimate authority and being murdered for it.0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »Relative peace?
The Israelis initiated conflict with the Palestinians in 1967 and the alleged "relative peace" you refer to was in fact a period of several decades under an entirely illegal, illegitimate and immoral occupation, in which the Palestinians had to watch their private property being confiscated and used to build towns and villages for squatters settlers.
Israel did not initiate conflict with the Palestinians in 1967. The Jordanians fired on Israel from the West Bank after they were deceived by the Egyptians into supporting them in the wake of the surprise attack by Israel on the morning of day one of the six day war. Israel counterattacked against the Jordanian forces in the West Bank and over the course of several days forced them back over the Jordan river. The Jordanians had occupied the West Bank in 1967 and had done nothing to advance the palestinian cause in those 19 years.
The Gaza strip was occupied by the Egyptians in 1948 and they, like the Jordanians, had done nothing for the Palestinians. It was overrun as part of the attack on the main Egyptian army in the Sinai. Afaik the Egyptians never asked for the Gaza strip back when they were negotiating the peace treaty with the Israelis in the 70's.
The mistake, in my opinion, that Israel made was in holding on to the occupied territories, as we can see in hindsight it was a terrible mistake for all parties. The prime minister of Israel at the time, Levi Eshkol, had deep misgivings about occupying these areas, perhaps if he hadn't passed away soon after the war things may have turned out differently.0 -
FrontStorm wrote: »
The IDF is hardly a neutral source. He also stated she was "hiding" which wasn't the case either.0 -
Firing through a few of the eyewitness statements on both sides, I'm inclined to think that her death was just an accident.
The protestors themselves admit that they'd become a little complacent about their actions; they were shocked when they saw the bulldozer running Rachel over because, "They'd always stopped before".
So if the bulldozers had always stopped, then you can see how the protestors could easily have lulled themselves into a false sense of security and been a little more careless, forgetting at times that they were dancing around in front of monster machines that could crush them without thinking.
For the protection of the operators, the cabs were quite heavily fortified, so vision was quite restricted. Most accounts seem to agree that when she realised that the dozer wasn't stopping, she climbed the mound of earth the dozer was pushing in front of it. She didn't do this out of panic - the dozer was moving quite slowly - she did it because that's what they usually did to get the operator's attention when they hadn't stopped. A fairly risky game, I think anyone would agree.
It's at this stage that what happened next seems to be uncertain, even among the protestors' eyewitnesses. Some claim that she seemed to fall off the mound when the dozer turned. Another claims that she turned to walk back down the mound and tripped. One claims that the dozer "scooped her up" and then dumped her on the ground. But that's so at odds with the other accounts that I'm inclined to think it's a dramatisation. They all claim that the operator had to have seen her when she climbed the mound, but given that only her head and upper torso were above the top of the bucket, I don't think a 3rd party observer can say for certain that she was visible.
So it would seem to me that for whatever reason the operator didn't see her, and she either fell or tripped off the mound and went under the dozer.
It doesn't really make sense for it to have been deliberate considering that they had otherwise been stopping and weren't exactly doing anything of particular importance. If the IDF had really gotten so annoyed that they wanted to push through, they would have lifted the protestors at gunpoint and been done with it. Or just run down everyone who got in the way. Running over a single protestor seems random and unnecessary.
Operator maliciousness? Perhaps. But in a "beyond a reasonable doubt" scenario, I don't see enough evidence to find him guilty.
Not that the IDF covered themselves in glory of course, as usual. They claimed that she was hit and killed by a slab of concrete the dozer was moving, and wasn't run over at all.
Why she was there and whether the dozers should have been there, and whether Israel should exist or not is all pretty irrelevant. The only issue is whether her death was either intentional or through gross negligence of the driver. And I don't see any really strong evidence for either.
In any case, in an action for damages against the IDF for a civilian death, I can't ever see an Israeli court finding against the IDF unless the evidence is indisputable.0 -
Advertisement
-
Since when did being photographed with a gun in a highly militarized and violent area justify a person's murder?
I think that Mr. stormfront's contention is that it was a 100% accident.....but anyway, she was wearing a towel on her head so even if it wasn't, she deserved to die.
Mr. Pro-Israeli Stormfront (oxymoron), what relevance does her attire or previous photographs have to the decision whether or not she was purposely bulldozed into the ground?0
Advertisement